Review Article

Strategies for the Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Information image

  • Views: 269

  • Likes: 0

  • Downloads: 24

  • Read time: 24m 21s
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Abstract

Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), such as those with a history of MI or stroke, are at high risk for morbidity and mortality associated with future cardiovascular events. Ideal management of these patients requires a multifactorial strategy for risk factor mitigation and prevention of additional cardiovascular events. Traditional management of secondary prevention patients involves lipid-lowering with statins, blood pressure control, and anti-platelet treatment. Several additional targets have been identified to optimize the secondary prevention of ASCVD, such as further lipid control, inflammation management, lifestyle and weight optimization, strict diabetes control, use of β-blockers, use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors, vaccinations, and additional considerations of anti-thrombotic therapies. This review will describe the interventions associated with these targets, as well as the relevant research and indications for these therapies.

Keywords

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, MI, stroke, lipids, triglycerides, inflammation, diabetes,

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15420/usc.2024.33

Disclosure: SSV has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health and Care Research (UK), Department of Veterans Affairs, Tahir and Jooma Family and Asharia Family. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Correspondence: Jaideep Patel, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, 6569 North Charles St, Pavilion West STE 600, Baltimore, MD 21204. E: jaideeppatel83@gmail.com

Copyright:

© The Author(s). This work is open access and is licensed under CC-BY-NC 4.0. Users may copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Despite improvements in risk factor management and the care of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the global burden of ASCVD remains high and exceedingly costly1,2 Notably, patients with established ASCVD, such as those with prior MI or stroke, are at high risk of additional future cardiovascular events3–6 With this in mind, attention focuses on further strategies for ASCVD prevention in addition to more conventional proven measures, such as blood pressure control, lipid-lowering with statins, and treatment with aspirin.

Central Illustration: Secondary Management of Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Article image
Download

This review will survey the guidelines associated with and recent research on under-recognized or under-managed targets of secondary prevention of ASCVD, with a special focus on lipid management, systemic inflammation, lifestyle interventions, weight management, diabetes management, use of β-blockers, use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, appropriate vaccinations, and anti-thrombotic therapies (Table 1)7–11

Table 1: Selected Guidelines for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Article image
Download

Table 1: Cont.

Article image
Download

Lifestyle Interventions

Diet

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown plant-based or Mediterranean diets (i.e. a high intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, with an emphasis on unsaturated fats over saturated fats and lean proteins over red meat) to be effective in secondary prevention of ASCVD12,13 For example, the CORDIOPREV study compared the Mediterranean diet with a low-fat diet for secondary prevention of ASCVD and found that the Mediterranean diet decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; unadjusted HR 0.745; 95% CI [0.563–0.986])14 This result persisted despite adjustment for age, sex, family history, smoking, BMI, weight changes, LDL cholesterol measurements, and baseline pharmacotherapies14 The PREDIMED study in high-risk individuals without preexisting ASCVD compared the effect of the Mediterranean diet plus either olive oil or nuts with a reduced-fat diet demonstrated a similarly reduced incidence of MACE15 Therefore, the 2023 American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guideline for patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) recommends a plant-based diet with lean protein (class 1: strong) and recommends reducing saturated fat and refined carbohydrate intake (class 2a: moderate)7

Physical Activity

Physical activity improves cardiovascular risk through multiple mechanisms, including improvement of ASCVD risk factors, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, and insulin resistance, along with decreased inflammation, improved endothelial function, and increased coronary collateral blood flow16

Increased physical activity correlates with decreased all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality17,18 Evidence supports that combined aerobic and resistance training improves outcomes, such as peak oxygen intake, upper and lower body strength, and fat loss, compared with aerobic training alone19,20

The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends an exercise regimen of at least 150 minutes/week of moderate-intensity or 75 minutes/week of high-intensity exercise for patients with ASCVD without contraindications with resistance training at least 2 days/week (class 1)7 For those with appropriate indications (recent MI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, history of angina, heart transplant, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection), exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, either in-person or remote, is recommended at a class 1 level by the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline, considering the decreased risks of cardiovascular death (risk ratio 0.74; 95% CI [0.64–0.86]) and MI (risk ratio 0.82; 95% CI [0.70–0.96])7,21

Regarding sexual activity, which represents a form of moderate physical activity, data suggest an overall low risk of MI or sudden cardiac death in the general population, which is further decreased by greater levels of regular physical activity22 The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline endorses resumption of sexual activity after evaluation of exercise capacity and the type of sexual activity in patients with ASCVD (class 2a) and additionally recommends regular physical activity and cardiac rehabilitation as a method to reduce the risks associated with sexual activity (class 2a)7 Of note, sexual dysfunction can be common after ASCVD events and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors such as sildenafil should not be used with nitrates, because of the risk of hypotension7

Mental Health

Both the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the AHA recognize the complex interplay between mental health and cardiovascular disease23,24 Depression after MI is associated with worse outcomes, with one meta-analysis demonstrating an OR of 2.71 (95% CI [1.68–4.36]) for cardiac death24–26 Depression negatively impacts ASCVD risk factors and can interfere with optimal ASCVD treatment and risk factor management23,24,27 Conversely, positive mental health behaviors and habits can be protective following MI, with decreased rates of cardiac readmissions noted for patients post-MI with baseline optimism (HR 0.92; 95% CI [0.86–0.98])23,28 The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends screening all individuals with ASCVD for mental health conditions and treating, either pharmacologically or non-pharmacologically, where appropriate7

Smoking, Vaping and Alcohol Use

There is a well-established association between cigarette smoking and ASCVD. Exposure to cigarette smoke has a multitude of deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system, such as increases in heart rate and blood pressure, increased myocardial oxygen demand, endothelial cell damage, activation of inflammatory pathways, and prothrombotic effects29,30 These effects can be ameliorated by smoking cessation. For example, smoking cessation increased flow-mediated dilation after 1 year, indicating improvements in endothelial function31 The benefits of smoking cessation for secondary prevention of ASCVD have been repeatedly demonstrated, with reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MACE, risk of repeat MI, and non-fatal stroke32,33

The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline endorses regular evaluation for tobacco use, counseling for smoking cessation, and behavioral or pharmacological interventions to support cessation efforts (class 1)7 Varenicline is preferred over bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (class 2a recommendation), because trials have demonstrated its increased efficacy and no increased cardiovascular events despite initial concerns7 Of note, alcohol consumption and use of other substances have also been associated with increased ASCVD risk, and as such, limiting alcohol consumption has been suggested by both American and European guidelines: one or fewer drinks/day for women, two or fewer drinks/day for men and less than 100 g/week, respectively7,8

Because of the relative newness of electronic cigarettes and vaping, there is minimal research available on the long-term cardiovascular effects of using these products. However, physiological studies have demonstrated adverse effects on the cardiovascular system similar to those conferred by traditional cigarettes, such as increased heart rate, blood pressure, oxidative stress, and endothelial damage34,35 Available data suggest that some of these effects may be less pronounced than those associated with traditional cigarettes, exemplified by one prospective RCT demonstrating improvements in endothelial function and vascular stiffness after 1 month of switching from traditional cigarettes to electronic cigarettes35,36

Ultimately, without long-term data on clinical outcomes and the observation that patients who start electronic cigarettes may use them long-term, it is difficult to quantify the long-term cardiovascular risks associated with these devices, but the evidence available does support minimizing exposure in patients with ASCVD. The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline states that short-term use of electronic cigarettes to aid in smoking cessation may be appropriate, but it should be weighed against the unclear risks of long-term use (class 2b: weak)7

Weight Management: Bariatric Surgery and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

Because of the clear association of body weight with ASCVD risk factors and outcome benefits seen with weight loss, the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends routine assessment of BMI and counseling on diet, lifestyle, and goals for weight loss in any patients considered overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2; class 1)7 Lifestyle changes made to promote weight loss may additionally increase physical activity and improve diet, which are important components of secondary prevention in ASCVD in their own right, as previously described.

In the context of increasing rates of severe obesity (BMI ≥40 kg/m2 or BMI 35–39.9 kg/m2 with a weight-related comorbidity) and the important but limited efficacy of lifestyle changes on long-term weight loss, other weight-loss interventions may be necessary to produce substantive long-term weight loss for secondary prevention of ASCVD, including bariatric surgery and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs)37–39 Bariatric surgery in patients with established ASCVD has been shown to decrease MACE40,41 However, many patients may not be appropriate surgical candidates and/or may prefer not to undergo a surgical procedure. As such, the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline prioritizes lifestyle and pharmacological interventions and recommends referral for bariatric surgery for patients with severe obesity and who have not met weight loss goals with lifestyle and pharmacological measures (class 2a)7

GLP-1 RAs function by increasing glucose uptake in peripheral tissues by increasing insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and increasing satiety42 Available GLP-1 RA and GLP-1 RA/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists have shown substantive efficacy in weight loss (Table 2)43–49 Cardiovascular outcomes in individuals without diabetes have been evaluated after treatment with semaglutide (GLP-1 RA) in the SELECT trial and with tirzepatide (combined GLP-1 RA/GIP agonist) in the SUMMIT trial50,51 In the SELECT trial of semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly in patients with preexisting ASCVD and BMI ≥27 kg/m2, but no history of diabetes, patients receiving semaglutide treatment had a 20% decrease in a composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (HR 0.80; 95% CI [0.72–0.90])50 Based on these data and because the STEP8 trial showed improved weight loss with semaglutide compared with liraglutide,52 the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline supports the selection of semaglutide over liraglutide for weight loss pharmacotherapy7 The 2024 SUMMIT trial demonstrated that subcutaneous tirzepatide up to 15 mg weekly in patients with history of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 decreased rates of a composite outcome of adjudicated death from cardiovascular causes or worsening heart failure event (HR 0.62; 95% CI [0.41–0.95])51 Analysis of the components of the composite showed a significant decrease in worsening heart failure events (HR 0.54; 95% CI [0.34–0.85]), but a nonsignificant effect on cardiovascular death (HR 1.58; 95% CI [0.52–4.83])51 Overall, treatment with a GLP-1 RA is recommended in patients with ASCVD, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, or BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 with weight-related comorbidity, and who have not met weight-loss goals after lifestyle interventions (class 2a, 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline)7

Table 2: Weight Loss Associated with Available Glucagon-like Peptide-1 and Glucagon-like Peptide-1/Glucose-dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide Receptor Agonists

Article image
Download

Diabetes Management: Sodium-glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

Intensive multifactorial interventions to optimize glucose regulation as well as the treatment of dyslipidemia and hypertension, and ASCVD risk reduction has been shown to decrease risks of cardiovascular death, cardiovascular events, and diabetic complications, such as nephropathy, retinopathy, and autonomic neuropathy53,54 Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and GLP-1 RA have emerged as promising treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) that additionally improve cardiovascular outcomes. The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends use of either agent (class 1)7 Studies of SGLT2i, such as empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin, have all demonstrated improved cardiovascular outcomes55–58 Treatment with canagliflozin was notably associated with increased rate of amputation, and SGLT2is as a class have been noted to carry an increased risk for genital infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis55–57 The use of SGLT2is may be limited by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and appropriate eGFR cutoffs for therapy depend on indication (eGFR ≥20 ml/min/1.72 m2 for heart failure,59–61 eGFR ≥30 ml/min/1.72 m2 for T2D)55,56 SGLT2i have also been shown to improve renal outcomes in chronic kidney disease, regardless of T2D status62,63

Trials of GLP-1 RA in patients with T2D additionally show improvement in cardiovascular outcomes, with the SUSTAIN-6 trial investigating semaglutide treatment demonstrating a 26% reduction in the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke (HR 0.74; 95% CI [0.58–0.95])64,65 As described above, treatment with tirzepatide decreased rates of worsening heart failure events in the SUMMIT trial51 The SURPASS-CVOT trial (NCT04255433) is currently under way to study cardiovascular outcomes of tirzepatide treatment compared with dulaglutide in patients with T2D.

LDL Cholesterol Management

There are multiple pharmacological options available for the reduction of LDL cholesterol (Table 3)66–77 Statins remain a key pillar of ASCVD secondary prevention, specifically the use of highest intensity statin therapy tolerated to achieve at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol7 The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends to treat to at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol (class 1) and to consider treatment to LDL cholesterol levels <1.81 mmol/l in those at very high risk of ASCVD (those with a history of multiple ASCVD events or previous ASCVD event and multiple predisposing conditions)7 The 2021 ESC ASCVD prevention guideline recommends LDL cholesterol <1.42 mmol/l for those with established ASCVD8 More intensive statin regimens for greater LDL cholesterol reduction have been shown to improve outcomes, with reductions in risk of death due to coronary heart disease by 20% per 1.0 mmol/l LDL cholesterol reduction (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI [0.74–0.87])78 However, substantive residual ASCVD risk may still persist despite statin treatment. An analysis of statin-treated patients with ASCVD in the AIM-HIGH trial cohort found a mean predicted 5-year risk of recurrent ASCVD events of 21.1% (range 7.7–79.7%) with increased risk associated with increased HbA1c (HR 1.10; 95% CI [1.01–1.19]) and lipoprotein(a) (HR 1.07; 95% CI [1.04–1.10])79

Table 3: Expected Lowering of LDL Cholesterol Levels by Available Medication

Article image
Download

Treatment with ezetimibe, which prevents intestinal cholesterol absorption, and treatment with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, which prevent degradation of LDL cholesterol receptors in the liver, are two avenues for further risk reduction associated with lipid management. The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends the use of ezetimibe in very high-risk ASCVD patients on maximally tolerated statin therapy and with LDL cholesterol ≥1.81 mmol/l (class 2a)7 The use of ezetimibe in lower-risk patients on statin therapy and with LDL cholesterol ≥1.81 mmol/l is a class 2b recommendation7 The IMPROVE-IT trial comparing ezetimibe and statin combined treatment to moderate-intensity statin monotherapy in adults with recent hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome showed decreased risk of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, or stroke (HR 0.94; 95% CI [0.89–0.99])80,81

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus on non-statin lipid-lowering therapies recommends the use of PCSK9 inhibitors in very high-risk ASCVD patients and suggests that prioritization of PSCK9 inhibitors over other non-statin therapies is reasonable in these patients who require >25% additional LDL cholesterol lowering82 The use of PCSK9 inhibitors in very high-risk ASCVD patients, already receiving statin and ezetimibe, with LDL cholesterol ≥1.81 mmol/l is a class 2a recommendation by the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline in patients with CCD, primarily based on the FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trials7,67,69 Based on meta-analysis of these and additional trials, PCSK9 inhibitor treatment reduces risk of a composite outcome of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 20% (relative risk 0.80; 95% CI [0.73–0.87])83

The prioritization of ezetimibe over PCSK9 inhibitors is partly associated with the financial burden of this therapy84 The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline classifies addition of ezetimibe in appropriate patients as a high-value intervention, while the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors is of uncertain value7 The first Food and Drug Administration-approved PCSK9 inhibitors (evolocumab and alirocumab) are monoclonal antibodies85 Inclisiran, a small-interfering RNA that targets PCSK9 messenger RNA was approved in 202185–87 The ORION-10 trial investigating inclisiran treatment in statin-treated patients with ASCVD and the ORION-11 trial in patients either with ASCVD or an ASCVD risk equivalent showed that inclisiran reduced LDL cholesterol by 52.3% (95% CI [48.8–55.7]) and 49.9% (95% CI [46.6–53.1]) respectively87 ORION-4 is an ongoing RCT designed to evaluate the impact of inclisiran treatment on risk of cardiovascular events in patients with established ASCVD (NCT03705234)86

Bempedoic acid inhibits ATP citrate lyase, an enzyme upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl CoA-reductase in the cholesterol synthesis pathway in the liver76 In the CLEAR-OUTCOMES trial (bempedoic acid in statin-intolerant patients with or at high risk for ASCVD), treatment with bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol and the incidence of MACE (HR 0.87; 95% CI [0.79–0.96])76 The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends use of bempedoic acid in patients on maximally tolerated statin therapy with LDL cholesterol ≥1.81 mmol/l and intolerant of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors (class 2b)7 There are several other LDL cholesterol-lowering agents in development, including cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors (e.g. obicetrapib),88 oral PCSK9 inhibitors,85 and lerodalcibep, an anti-PCSK9 small binding protein89

Lipoprotein(a)

As highlighted by an AHA statement, lipoprotein(a) is associated with increased lifetime ASCVD risk90 In a cohort of 10,181 individuals with ASCVD, lipoprotein(a) measurements above the 50th percentile were associated with increased incidence of MACE (adjusted HR 1.14 for lipoprotein(a) in the 51–70 percentile; 95% CI [1.05–1.24], adjusted HR 1.21 for lipoprotein(a) in the 71–90 percentile; 95% CI [1.11–1.32], adjusted HR 1.26 for lipoprotein(a) in the 91–100 percentile; 95% [1.12–1.41])91 In an analysis of one large primary prevention cohort and two secondary prevention cohorts, elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) were associated with increased risks of MACE regardless of baseline levels of inflammation as determined by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)92

There are currently no commercially available therapies that specifically target lipoprotein(a) and no direct evidence that targeting lipoprotein(a) decreases cardiovascular events. However, novel lipoprotein(a)-lowering therapies being investigated include pelacarsen (NCT04023552), lepodisiran (NCT06292013), zerlasiran, muvalaplin, and olpasiran (NCT05581303)86,93,94,95 While pharmacological strategies directly targeting lipoprotein(a) are in development, the association between elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased ASCVD risk supports more aggressive risk factor management and lipid-lowering in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) (typically defined as lipoprotein(a) >50 mg/dl [125 nmol/l])90,95,96 Of note, subgroup analyses of the FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trials found that treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors significantly decreased lipoprotein(a) levels97,98

Hypertriglyceridemia

Having persistent elevated triglycerides (>1.69 mmol/l) has been associated with adverse outcomes for patients with ASCVD in multiple studies, including increased all-cause mortality, MI, non-fatal stroke, and need for coronary revascularization, even when controlling for LDL cholesterol and statin therapy99–101 Trials investigating agents such as fibrates and niacin to lower triglycerides have shown minimal to no benefit, and the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline labels use of fibrates or niacin as a class 3: no benefit recommendation7,102 As has been reviewed elsewhere, limitations in trial design and the limitations of total triglyceride concentration as a marker for the triglyceride-rich lipoproteins that are more significantly associated with increased ASCVD risk may account, at least in part, for the lack of benefit seen in these studies103 Agents directly targeting triglyceride-rich lipoproteins are currently being investigated103

Icosapent ethyl is an ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), which has been shown to improve inflammation and endothelial function in physiologic studies104 The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline classifies use of icosapent ethyl in patients on maximally-tolerated statin therapy with LDL cholesterol <2.59 mmol/l and persistent fasting triglycerides 1.69–5.63 mmol/l after lifestyle modification as a class 2b recommendation7 Of note, the American Diabetes Association endorses the use of icosapent ethyl in statin-treated individuals with diabetes and established ASCVD with persistently elevated triglycerides as a level A recommendation105

These recommendations are based on the smaller open-label study, JELIS, and the larger RCT, REDUCE-IT106,107 The REDUCE-IT trial demonstrated reduced risk of MACE with icosapent ethyl treatment in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and with established ASCVD or diabetes and risk factors (HR 0.75; 95% CI [0.68–0.83])107 Other formulations of omega-3-fatty acids have not shown to be effective in RCTs102,107 For example, the STRENGTH trial investigating treatment of statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and at high cardiovascular risk with a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid showed no benefit in reduction of MACE108

The 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline raises concern over the use of mineral oil as placebo in REDUCE-IT due to the adverse effects of mineral oil noted on lipids and other biomarkers, including lipoprotein(a) and hs-CRP, in a sub-study of the REDUCE-IT trial7,109 However, a meta-analysis of the impact of mineral oil showed inconsistent and overall nonsignificant effects on lipids and other biomarkers110 Several over-the-counter supplements are additionally marketed for use in lipid management, but RCT data demonstrate no significant difference in triglycerides or LDL cholesterol associated with these supplements compared with placebo111

Use of β-blockers

β-blockers, along with RAAS inhibitors, have traditionally been considered first-line therapy for the pharmacological management of hypertension in patients with ASCVD for those with indications such as recent MI or angina (class 1 recommendation, 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline)7 Achieving a blood pressure target of <130/<80 mmHg has been associated with improved cardiac outcomes and lower rates of additional ASCVD events7,112 β-blockers, specifically carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, and bisoprolol, are also strongly indicated in ASCVD patients with concomitant heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%; class 1 recommendation, 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline)7,113

Historically, β-blockers were considered standard of care for all patients after MI in perpetuity, regardless of left ventricular systolic function, because of their benefit in decreased myocardial oxygen demand and reduced left ventricular remodeling114,115 This recommendation was primarily based on older data from the 1990s and early 2000s showing improved cardiac outcomes, with one 1999 meta-analysis demonstrating long-term treatment with β-blockers after MI decreased risk of death by 23% (95% CI [15–31])114–116 More recent data have called into question the long-term use of β-blockers after MI (>1 year). For example, in the REACH registry, use of β-blockers was only associated with decreased risk of composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ASCVD-associated hospitalization when limited to patients with history of MI within 1 year (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.64–0.92]), but was not associated with a significant difference in event rates for the overall cohort of patients with a history of MI117 A large Danish cohort study noted that β-blocker treatment 3 months to 3 years after admission for MI had no significant effect on cardiovascular death or recurrent MI118 Based primarily on this observational data, the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends re-assessing the need for β-blocker use in patients with ASCVD and history of MI >1 year and without other primary indication for β-blocker use, such as decreased ejection fraction, uncontrolled hypertension, or arrhythmia7

Notably, the REDUCE-AMI trial further calls into question the use of β-blockers for secondary prevention in patients post-MI who have LVEF ≥50% and underwent revascularization119,120 β-blocker use in this population did not significantly affect outcomes of overall mortality, recurrent MI, cardiovascular death, or heart failure hospitalization120 This trial further suggests that the earlier trials that showed more universal benefit of β-blockers after MI may be less applicable now given increased access to improved revascularization procedures; however more data from additional RCTs, of which there are several ongoing, are needed to clarify the issue119,120

Use of Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone Inhibitors

Inhibition of the RAAS with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker is strongly indicated for patients with ASCVD and comorbid hypertension, diabetes, LVEF ≤40%, or chronic kidney disease (class 1 recommendation, AHA/ACC)7 One meta-analysis of five RCTs of ACEi treatment in patients with heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction demonstrated decreased risks of death (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.74–0.87]) and heart failure hospitalization (OR 0.67; 95% CI [0.61–0.74])121 The SAVE and TRACE trials both studied ACEi in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after MI and reported decreased risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure progression122,123

In patients with ASCVD and without the comorbid conditions outlined earlier, the benefits of RAAS inhibition are less clear, and the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline classifies their use to decrease cardiovascular events as a class 2b recommendation7 Multiple trials have studied RAAS inhibition in these patients, with mixed results. The EUROPA and HOPE trials, investigating perindopril and ramipril respectively, both showed an approximately 20% decrease in the risk of in cardiovascular events124,125 However, the QUIET and PEACE studies on quinapril and trandolapril respectively found no significant effect on cardiovascular event rates with treatment126,127 These inconsistencies in outcome across trials may also be associated with different rates of other secondary prevention interventions across the various trial populations112

Targeting Systemic Inflammation

Systemic inflammation is increasingly recognized as a key element of ASCVD, especially as data accumulate to support residual inflammatory risk despite statin treatment7,128,129 hs-CRP is an inflammatory marker that may identify patients with significant residual ASCVD risk. For example, analysis of the FOURIER trial demonstrated a significant trend in the control group between increased hs-CRP and event rates (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, all-cause mortality, and coronary revascularization [p for trend <0.0001])130 With adjustment for LDL cholesterol achieved during the trial and other confounders, higher baseline hs-CRP was significantly associated with increased rates of the primary composite endpoint (HR 1.09; 95% CI [1.07–1.12] for each doubling in hs-CRP)130 The JUPITER trial investigated the use of rosuvastatin for primary prevention in individuals with LDL cholesterol <3.36 mmol/l and hs-CRP ≥2.0 mg/l and demonstrated significant reductions in a composite end point of MI, stroke, arterial revascularization, unstable angina hospitalization, or cardiovascular death (HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.46–0.69]), suggesting a benefit of lowering hs-CRP on MACE131

Several studies thereafter have investigated various anti-inflammatory agents for secondary prevention in ASCVD. The CANTOS trial showed that treatment with canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1β, in patients with previous MI and hsCRP ≥2 mg/l reduced cardiovascular events, supporting the utility of pharmacologically targeting inflammation as a method of secondary prevention132 However, widespread recommendations for use of antibody-based interleukin-1β therapy are limited due to cost ineffectiveness133 In contrast, the CIRT trial investigating low-dose methotrexate for secondary prevention of ASCVD did not significantly decrease interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, or C-reactive protein and did not affect rates of cardiovascular events when compared with placebo134 Ziltivekimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-6, has been shown to significantly reduce hs-CRP and other inflammatory markers such as fibrinogen and serum amyloid A in patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease and baseline hs-CRP ≥2 mg/l and is currently being further investigated for secondary prevention of ASCVD in this population (ZEUS trial, NCT05021835)135,136

Colchicine is a microtubule inhibitor that also targets the interleukin-1β pathway and inhibits neutrophil function128,137 Trials investigating colchicine use have shown mixed results, especially when considering their use after acute MI137–140 The LoDoCo and LoDoCo2 trials both investigated the effect of colchicine 0.5 mg daily on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ASCVD and found decreased event rates with colchicine treatment137,138 The LoDoCo2 trial found that colchicine treatment conferred a 41% decrease in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (HR 0.69; 95% CI [0.57–0.83]), although a nonsignificant trend towards increased non-cardiovascular death in the treatment group (HR 1.51; 95% CI [0.99–2.31]) was also noted138 The COLCOT trial examined colchicine treatment in patients with recent MI and demonstrated a decreased risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (HR 0.77; 95% CI [0.61–0.96])139 Based on these data, the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline classifies treatment with colchicine as a class 2b recommendation for patients who remain at very high risk and are already treated with maximally-tolerated conventional guideline-directed medical therapy7 In 2024, the CLEAR SYNERGY trial investigated daily colchicine treatment in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention for MI in a larger population than COLCOT and showed no difference in MACE140

Anti-thrombotic Therapies: Rivaroxaban

The benefit of aspirin is well-known in patients with ASCVD, and a substantial portion of patients with ASCVD have indications for additional anti-platelet therapy or for therapeutic oral anti-coagulation7 Further research has sought to determine whether additional anti-platelet or anti-coagulation therapies may be appropriate in the broader ASCVD population. The COMPASS trial randomized patients with stable ASCVD to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg daily141 The rivaroxaban plus aspirin group had a decreased incidence of a primary outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke compared with aspirin alone (HR 0.76; 95% CI [0.66–0.86])141 This benefit persisted in subgroup analyses of patients with coronary artery disease, peripheral or carotid artery disease, or diabetes142–144 Use of rivaroxaban plus aspirin did increase major bleeding events (HR 1.70; 95% CI [1.40–2.05]) compared with aspirin alone, but rates of intracranial bleeding or fatal bleeding were comparable between the two groups141 Thus, the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends the use of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 81 mg in patients with ASCVD without an indication for therapeutic anti-coagulation or dual anti-platelet therapy, who are high risk for additional ASCVD events and low-moderate bleeding risk (class 2a)7 The 2021 ESC ASCVD prevention guideline also recommends low-dose rivaroxaban treatment in these individuals (class 2a)8

Vaccinations

Evidence supports an association between influenza infection and subsequent acute coronary syndrome145,146 In one meta-analysis, patients with acute MI were twice as likely to have had a recent influenza or other respiratory tract infection (pooled OR 2.01; 95% CI [1.47–2.76])147 This link appears to be mediated by increased inflammation as well as direct effects of the virus on atherosclerotic plaques146 Correspondingly, influenza vaccination has been shown to be effective for secondary prevention in patients with ASCVD148–150 The IAMI trial, an RCT of influenza vaccine administration to patients with recent MI, showed that influenza vaccination decreased the risks of all-cause death (HR 0.59; 95% CI [0.39–0.89]), cardiovascular death (HR 0.59; 95% CI [0.39–0.90]), and MI (HR 0.86; 95% CI [0.50–1.46]) when compared with placebo151 Annual influenza vaccination in patients with ASCVD is a class 1 recommendation by the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline7

There are fewer data available for pneumococcal vaccination for secondary prevention in patients with ASCVD, although the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline recommends it (class 2a), based on the data available7

Further data are necessary on the long-term impact of vaccination for COVID-19 on cardiovascular event rate. However, full and partial vaccination substantively decreases the rate of MACE associated with COVID-19 (full completion of the vaccination schedule: HR 0.59; 95% CI [0.55–0.63]; partial completion of the vaccination schedule: HR 0.76; 95% CI [0.65–0.89]), and thus is recommended by the 2023 AHA/ACC CCD guideline (class 1)7,152

Conclusion

There is a multitude of targets that have shown benefit for the secondary prevention of ASCVD. It is additionally key to note that social determinants of health play a substantive role regarding outcomes in ASCVD and may affect management of any of the previously described targets153 Ample data support these interventions to decrease residual risk in patients with established ASCVD, and these interventions should be strongly considered dependent on individual patient characteristics.

References

  1. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2982–3021. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Virani SS, Alonso A, Aparicio HJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2021 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021;143:e254–743. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Alberts MJ, Bhatt DL, Mas JL, et al. Three-year follow-up and event rates in the international REduction of atherothrombosis for Continued Health Registry. Eur Heart J 2009;30:2318–26. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Rapsomaniki E, Thuresson M, Yang E, et al. Using big data from health records from four countries to evaluate chronic disease outcomes: a study in 114 364 survivors of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2016;2:172–83. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Bhatt DL, Eagle KA, Ohman EM, et al. Comparative determinants of 4-year cardiovascular event rates in stable outpatients at risk of or with atherothrombosis. JAMA 2010;304:1350–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Holtrop J, Bhatt DL, Ray KK, et al. Impact of the 2021 European Society for Cardiology prevention guideline’s stepwise approach for cardiovascular risk factor treatment in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2024;31:zwae038. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Virani SS, Newby LK, Arnold SV, et al. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline for the management of patients with chronic coronary disease: a report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2023;148:e9–119. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Visseren FLJ, Mach F, Smulders YM, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J 2021;42:3227–337. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2020;41:407–77. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Pearson GJ, Thanassoulis G, Anderson TJ, et al. 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults. Can J Cardiol 2021;37:1129–50. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Mancini GBJ, O’Meara E, Zieroth S, et al. 2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline for use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiorenal risk reduction in adults. Can J Cardiol 2022;38:1153–67. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Singh RB, Rastogi SS, Verma R, et al. Randomised controlled trial of cardioprotective diet in patients with recent acute myocardial infarction: results of one year follow up. BMJ 1992;304:1015–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. De Lorgeril M, Salen P, Martin JL, et al. Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction: final report of the Lyon Diet heart study. Circulation 1999;99:779–85. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Delgado-Lista J, Alcala-Diaz JF, Torres-Peña JD, et al. Long-term secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet and a low-fat diet (CORDIOPREV): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2022;399:1876–85. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts. N Engl J Med 2018;378:e34. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Tucker WJ, Fegers-Wustrow I, Halle M, et al. Exercise for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: JACC Focus Seminar 1/4. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022;80:1091–106. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Stewart RAH, Held C, Hadziosmanovic N, et al. Physical activity and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1689–700. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Jeong SW, Kim SH, Kang SH, et al. Mortality reduction with physical activity in patients with and without cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J 2019;40:3547–55. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Fan Y, Yu M, Li J, et al. Efficacy and safety of resistance training for coronary heart disease rehabilitation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021;8:754794. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Marzolini S, Oh PI, Brooks D. Effect of combined aerobic and resistance training versus aerobic training alone in individuals with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012;19:81–94. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Dibben GO, Faulkner J, Oldridge N, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2023;44:452–69. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Dahabreh IJ, Paulus JK. Association of episodic physical and sexual activity with triggering of acute cardiac events: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;305:1225–33. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Levine GN, Cohen BE, Commodore-Mensah Y, et al. Psychological health, well-being, and the mind-heart-body connection: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021;143:e763–83. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Vaccarino V, Badimon L, Bremner JD, et al. Depression and coronary heart disease: 2018 position paper of the ESC working group on coronary pathophysiology and microcirculation. Eur Heart J 2020;41:1687–96. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Meijer A, Conradi HJ, Bos EH, et al. Prognostic association of depression following myocardial infarction with mortality and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis of 25 years of research. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2011;33:203–16. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Lichtman JH, Froelicher ES, Blumenthal JA, et al. Depression as a risk factor for poor prognosis among patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and recommendations: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014;129:1350–69. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Gehi A, Haas D, Pipkin S, Whooley MA. Depression and medication adherence in outpatients with coronary heart disease: findings from the Heart and Soul Study. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2508–13. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Huffman JC, Beale EE, Celano CM, et al. Effects of optimism and gratitude on physical activity, biomarkers, and readmissions after an acute coronary syndrome: the gratitude research in acute coronary events study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2016;9:55–63. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Willett J, Achenbach S, Pinto FJ, et al. The tobacco endgame – eradicating a worsening epidemic: a joint opinion from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021;144:e1–5. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Morris PB, Ference BA, Jahangir E, et al. Cardiovascular effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and electronic cigarettes: clinical perspectives from the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Section Leadership Council and Early Career Councils of the American College of Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1378–91. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Johnson HM, Gossett LK, Piper ME, et al. Effects of smoking and smoking cessation on endothelial function: 1-year outcomes from a randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1988–95. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Critchley JA, Capewell S. Mortality risk reduction associated with smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;290:86–97. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Wu AD, Lindson N, Hartmann-Boyce J, et al. Smoking cessation for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;8:CD014936. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Shahandeh N, Chowdhary H, Middlekauff HR. Vaping and cardiac disease. Heart 2021;107:1530–5. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Qasim H, Karim ZA, Rivera JO, et al. Impact of electronic cigarettes on the cardiovascular system. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e006353. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. George J, Hussain M, Vadiveloo T, et al. Cardiovascular effects of switching from tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:3112–20. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Parikh NI, Pencina MJ, Wang TJ, et al. Increasing trends in incidence of overweight and obesity over 5 decades. Am J Med 2007;120:242–50. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Dansinger ML, Tatsioni A, Wong JB, et al. Meta-analysis: the effect of dietary counseling for weight loss. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:41–50. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Wu T, Gao X, Chen M, Van Dam RM. Long-term effectiveness of diet-plus-exercise interventions vs. diet-only interventions for weight loss: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2009;10:313–23. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Doumouras AG, Wong JA, Paterson JM, et al. Bariatric surgery and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and cardiovascular disease: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Circulation 2021;143:1468–80. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Näslund E, Stenberg E, Hofmann R, et al. Association of metabolic surgery with major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with previous myocardial infarction and severe obesity: a nationwide cohort study. Circulation 2021;143:1458–67. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Usman MS, Davies M, Hall ME, et al. The cardiovascular effects of novel weight loss therapies. Eur Heart J 2023;44:5036–48. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Calanna S, et al. Once-weekly semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity. N Engl J Med 2021;384:989–1002. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Pi-Sunyer X, Astrup A, Fujioka K, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of 3.0 mg of liraglutide in weight management. N Engl J Med 2015;373:11–22. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Aroda VR, Rosenstock J, Terauchi Y, et al. Pioneer 1: Randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in comparison with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1724–32. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Knop FK, Aroda VR, Do Vale RD, et al. Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023;402:705–19. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Frias JP, Bonora E, Nevarez Ruiz L, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-11). Diabetes Care 2021;44:765–73. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Buse JB, Drucker DJ, Taylor KL, et al. DURATION-1: exenatide once weekly produces sustained glycemic control and weight loss over 52 weeks. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1255–61. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Jastreboff AM, Aronne LJ, Ahmad NN, et al. Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity. N Engl J Med 2022;387:205–16. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. N Engl J Med 2023;389:2221–32. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Packer M, Zile MR, Kramer CM, et al. Tirzepatide for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. N Engl J Med 2025;392:427–37. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Rubino DM, Greenway FL, Khalid U, et al. Effect of weekly subcutaneous semaglutide vs daily liraglutide on body weight in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes: the STEP 8 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;327:138–50. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Gæde P, Vedel P, Larsen N, et al. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2003;348:383–93. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Gæde P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:580–91. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2117–28. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:644–57. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;380:347–57. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. McGuire DK, Shih WJ, Cosentino F, et al. Association of SGLT2 inhibitors with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:148–58. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1413–24. 
    Crossref
  60. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1995–2008. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1451–61. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. The EMPA-KIDNEY Collaborative Group, Herrington WG, Staplin N, et al. Empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 2023;388:117–27. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1436–46. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311–22. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1834–44. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;129(Suppl 2):S1–45. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Schwartz GG, Steg PG, Szarek M, et al. Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2097–107. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Robinson JG, Farnier M, Krempf M, et al. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1489–99. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, et al. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1713–22. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Blom DJ, Hala T, Bolognese M, et al. A 52-week placebo-controlled trial of evolocumab in hyperlipidemia. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1809–19. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Koren MJ, Giugliano RP, Raal FJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of longer-term administration of evolocumab (AMG 145) in patients with hypercholesterolemia: 52-week results from the open-label study of long-term evaluation against LDL-C (OSLER) randomized trial. Circulation 2014;129:234–43. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Ray KK, Bays HE, Catapano AL, et al. Safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid to reduce LDL cholesterol. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022–32. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Goldberg AC, Leiter LA, Stroes ESG, et al. Effect of bempedoic acid vs placebo added to maximally tolerated statins on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease: the CLEAR wisdom randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;322:1780–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. Ballantyne CM, Banach M, Mancini GBJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid added to ezetimibe in statin-intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Atherosclerosis 2018;277:195–203. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  75. Laufs U, Banach M, Mancini GBJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia and statin intolerance. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e011662. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. Nissen SE, Lincoff AM, Brennan D, et al. Bempedoic acid and cardiovascular outcomes in statin-intolerant patients. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1353–64. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. Battaggia A, Donzelli A, Font M, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of ezetimibe on major cardiovascular endpoints: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2015;10:e0124587. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  78. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (Ctt) Collaboration, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 2010;376:1670–81. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  79. Wong ND, Zhao Y, Xiang P, et al. Five-year residual atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction model for statin treated patients with known cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 2020;137:7–11. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  80. Bach RG, Cannon CP, Giugliano RP, et al. Effect of simvastatin-ezetimibe compared with simvastatin monotherapy after acute coronary syndrome among patients 75 years or older: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2019;4:846–54. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  81. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2387–97. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  82. Writing Committee, Lloyd-Jones DM, Morris PB, et al. 2022 ACC expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies for LDL-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022;80:1366–418. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  83. Talasaz AH, Ho AJ, Bhatty F, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of PCSK9 modulators in patients with established ASCVD. Pharmacotherapy 2021;41:1009–23. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  84. Kazi DS, Penko J, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alirocumab: a just-in-time analysis based on the ODYSSEY outcomes trial. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:221–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  85. Garwood CL, Cabral KP, Brown R, Dixon DL. Current and emerging PCSK9-directed therapies to reduce LDL-C and ASCVD risk: a state-of-the-art review. Pharmacotherapy 2025;45:54–65. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  86. Gaine SP, Quispe R, Patel J, Michos ED. New strategies for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for cardiovascular disease prevention. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 2022;16:69–78. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  87. Ray KK, Wright RS, Kallend D, et al. Two Phase 3 trials of inclisiran in patients with elevated LDL cholesterol. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1507–19. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  88. Kastelein JJP, Hsieh A, Dicklin MR, et al. Obicetrapib: reversing the tide of CETP inhibitor disappointments. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2024;26:35–44. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  89. Klug EQ, Llerena S, Burgess LJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of lerodalcibep in patients with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2024;9:800–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  90. Reyes-Soffer G, Ginsberg HN, Berglund L, et al. Lipoprotein(a): a genetically determined, causal, and prevalent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2022;42:e48–60. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  91. Berman AN, Biery DW, Besser SA, et al. Lipoprotein(a) and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with or without baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2024;83:873–86. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  92. Small AM, Pournamdari A, Melloni GEM, et al. Lipoprotein(a), C-reactive protein, and cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention populations. JAMA Cardiol 2024;9:e235605. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  93. Nissen SE, Wang Q, Nicholls SJ, et al. Zerlasiran-A small-interfering RNA targeting lipoprotein(a): a Phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2024;332:1992–2002. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  94. Nicholls SJ, Ni W, Rhodes GM, et al. Oral muvalaplin for lowering of lipoprotein(a): a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2025;333:e2424017. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  95. Wong ND. Lipoprotein(a): ready for prime time? J Am Coll Cardiol 2024;83:887–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  96. Wilson DP, Jacobson TA, Jones PH, et al. Use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: a biomarker whose time has come. A scientific statement from the National Lipid Association. J Clin Lipidol 2022;16:e77–95. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  97. Bittner VA, Szarek M, Aylward PE, et al. Effect of alirocumab on lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular risk after acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:133–44. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  98. O’Donoghue ML, Fazio S, Giugliano RP, et al. Lipoprotein(a), PCSK9 inhibition, and cardiovascular risk. Circulation 2019;139:1483–92. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  99. Klempfner R, Erez A, Sagit BZ, et al. Elevated triglyceride level is independently associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients with established coronary heart disease: twenty-two–year follow-up of the bezafibrate infarction prevention study and registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2016;9:100–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  100. Nichols GA, Philip S, Reynolds K, et al. Increased residual cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes and high versus normal triglycerides despite statin-controlled LDL cholesterol. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019;21:366–71. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  101. Toth PP, Granowitz C, Hull M, et al. High triglycerides are associated with increased cardiovascular events, medical costs, and resource use: a real-world administrative claims analysis of statin-treated patients with high residual cardiovascular risk. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e008740. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  102. Ganda OP, Bhatt DL, Mason RP, et al. Unmet need for adjunctive dyslipidemia therapy in hypertriglyceridemia management. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:330–43. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  103. Malick WA, Waksman O, Do R, et al. Clinical trial design for triglyceride-rich lipoprotein-lowering therapies: JACC Focus Seminar 3/3. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;81:1646–58. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  104. Gaba P, Bhatt DL, Mason RP, et al. Benefits of icosapent ethyl for enhancing residual cardiovascular risk reduction: a review of key findings from REDUCE-IT. J Clin Lipidol 2022;16:389–402. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  105. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care 2023;46(Suppl 1):S158–90. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  106. Yokoyama M, Origasa H, Matsuzaki M, et al. Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomised open-label, blinded endpoint analysis. Lancet 2007;369:1090–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  107. Bhatt DL, Steg PG, Miller M, et al. Cardiovascular risk reduction with icosapent ethyl for hypertriglyceridemia. N Engl J Med 2019;380:11–22. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  108. Nicholls SJ, Lincoff AM, Garcia M, et al. Effect of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids vs corn oil on major adverse cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk: the STRENGTH randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020;324:2268–80. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  109. Ridker PM, Rifai N, MacFadyen J, et al. Effects of randomized treatment with icosapent ethyl and a mineral oil comparator on interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, oxidized low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, homocysteine, lipoprotein(a), and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2: a REDUCE-IT biomarker substudy. Circulation 2022;146:372–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  110. Olshansky B, Chung MK, Budoff MJ, et al. Mineral oil: safety and use as placebo in REDUCE-IT and other clinical studies. Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;22(Suppl J):J34–48. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  111. Laffin LJ, Bruemmer D, Garcia M, et al. Comparative effects of low-dose rosuvastatin, placebo, and dietary supplements on lipids and inflammatory biomarkers. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;81:1–12. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  112. Bangalore S, Fakheri R, Wandel S, et al. Renin angiotensin system inhibitors for patients with stable coronary artery disease without heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMJ 2017;356:j4. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  113. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e895–e1032. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  114. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2012;126:e354–471. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  115. Goldstein S. Beta-blockers in hypertensive and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1267–76. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  116. Freemantle N, Cleland J, Young P, et al. Beta blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta regression analysis. BMJ 1999;318:1730–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  117. Bangalore S, Steg G, Deedwania P, et al. β-blocker use and clinical outcomes in stable outpatients with and without coronary artery disease. JAMA 2012;308:1340–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  118. Holt A, Blanche P, Zareini B, et al. Effect of long-term beta-blocker treatment following myocardial infarction among stable, optimally treated patients without heart failure in the reperfusion era: a Danish, nationwide cohort study. Eur Heart J 2021;42:907–14. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  119. Steg PG. Routine beta-blockers in secondary prevention — on injured reserve. N Engl J Med 2024;390:1434–6. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  120. Yndigegn T, Lindahl B, Mars K, et al. Beta-blockers after myocardial infarction and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2024;390:1372–81. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  121. Flather MD, Yusuf S, Køber L, et al. Long-term ACE-inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure or left-ventricular dysfunction: a systematic overview of data from individual patients. ACE-Inhibitor Myocardial Infarction Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000;355:1575–81. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  122. Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, Carlsen JE, et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Trandolapril cardiac evaluation (TRACE) study group. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1670–6. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  123. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction: results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. N Engl J Med 1992;327:669–77. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  124. EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 2003;362:782–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  125. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators, Yusuf S, Sleight P, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2000;342:145–53. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  126. Pitt B, O’Neill B, Feldman R, et al. The Quinapril Ischemic Event Trial (QUIET): evaluation of chronic ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:1058–63. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  127. Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Fowler SE, et al. Angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2058–68. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  128. Lawler PR, Bhatt DL, Godoy LC, et al. Targeting cardiovascular inflammation: next steps in clinical translation. Eur Heart J 2021;42:113–31. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  129. Ridker PM. How common is residual inflammatory risk? Circ Res 2017;120:617–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  130. Bohula EA, Giugliano RP, Leiter LA, et al. Inflammatory and cholesterol risk in the FOURIER trial. Circulation 2018;138:131–40. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  131. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FAH, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195–207. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  132. Ridker PM, Everett BM, Thuren T, et al. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1119–31. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  133. Sehested TSG, Bjerre J, Ku S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of canakinumab for prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events. JAMA Cardiol 2019;4:128–35. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  134. Ridker PM, Everett BM, Pradhan A, et al. Low-dose methotrexate for the prevention of atherosclerotic events. N Engl J Med 2019;380:752–62. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  135. Wada Y, Jensen C, Meyer ASP, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 inhibition with ziltivekimab in patients at high risk of atherosclerotic events in Japan (RESCUE-2): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. J Cardiol 2023;82:279–85. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  136. Ridker PM, Devalaraja M, Baeres FMM, et al. IL-6 inhibition with ziltivekimab in patients at high atherosclerotic risk (RESCUE): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2021;397:2060–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  137. Nidorf SM, Eikelboom JW, Budgeon CA, Thompson PL. Low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:404–10. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  138. Nidorf SM, Fiolet ATL, Mosterd A, et al. Colchicine in patients with chronic coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1838–47. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  139. Tardif JC, Kouz S, Waters DD, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2497–505. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  140. Jolly SS, d’Entremont MA, Lee SF, et al. Colchicine in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2025;392:NEJMoa2405922. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  141. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1319–30. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  142. Anand SS, Bosch J, Eikelboom JW, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:219–29. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  143. Connolly SJ, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:205–18. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  144. Bhatt DL, Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, et al. Role of combination antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: insights from the COMPASS trial. Circulation 2020;141:1841–54. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  145. Chow EJ, Rolfes MA, O’Halloran A, et al. Acute cardiovascular events associated with influenza in hospitalized adults: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:605–13. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  146. Aidoud A, Marlet J, Angoulvant D, et al. Influenza vaccination as a novel means of preventing coronary heart disease: effectiveness in older adults. Vaccine 2020;38:4944–55. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  147. Barnes M, Heywood AE, Mahimbo A, et al. Acute myocardial infarction and influenza: a meta-analysis of case–control studies. Heart 2015;101:1738–47. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  148. Clar C, Oseni Z, Flowers N, et al. Influenza vaccines for preventing cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015:CD005050. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  149. Rodrigues BS, Alves M, Duarte GS, et al. The impact of influenza vaccination in patients with cardiovascular disease: an overview of systematic reviews. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2021;31:315–20. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  150. Yedlapati SH, Khan SU, Talluri S, et al. Effects of influenza vaccine on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2021;10:e019636. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  151. Fröbert O, Götberg M, Erlinge D, et al. Influenza vaccination after myocardial infarction: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Circulation 2021;144:1476–84. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  152. Jiang J, Chan L, Kauffman J, et al. Impact of vaccination on major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with COVID-19 infection. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;81:928–30. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  153. Havranek EP, Mujahid MS, Barr DA, et al. Social determinants of risk and outcomes for cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;132:873–98. 
    Crossref | PubMed
Previous Volume Article Next Volume Article